Who’s on or off “The List”?

Share Button

Who’s in on or off “The List” is finally finished and posted J.  I think it speaks for itself so will say no more and leave it to you to read and digest.  I invite your comments.

Next on the list is Ron Leroux‘s testimony regarding “sexual improprieties” or, as we may now be led to believe by Mr. Engelmann, lack thereof by everyone everywhere.  This is another project which will probably take a wee bit of time but I think it’s too important.  It’s summer break so the timing is right. I’ll pick away at it over the next few days.

Keep an eye on New to the Site on the Home page.  If I come across media coverage or articles which warrant posting I will often do so without comment, particularly when I am working on something major such as Ron’s testimony.

Another reminder.  The Pico search engine on theinquiry.ca has to be “indexed” to recognize new material.  Once upon a time I had indexing done frequently.  As the site has grown larger I now have it done once a week on Sunday morning.  That means if you are conducting a search hoping to find something that was posted early in the week it won’t be picked up by the search engine until Sunday afternoon. Therefore if you’re looking for something specific between Sunday and Saturday I suggest you scroll through New to the Site.  Ten to one you will find what you’re looking for in the past six days of postings.

And that’s enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Who’s on or off “The List”?

  1. prima facie says:

    Sylvia: I would like to respond to “AbsentObserver’s” reply to previous blogs/comments; (see “A Bit of a Mess” 10 July 2007 at 7:38pm, link to “comments” #4-July 17, 2007 at 7:19pm)

    I believe, “AbsentObserver” intially “commented” in these blogs on this website, in “wonder” and asking “why” about perceptions/interpretations “AbsentObserver” had formed, relating to people’s belief and support, for Ron Leroux.

    “AbsentObserver” has continued to accuse unnamed people of calling Ron Leroux a “liar” and “AbsentObserver” attempts to, intentionally or otherwise, instill shame/guilt on some people who may have supported Ron Leroux at one time but not today. This has been unrelenting.

    “AbsentObserver” has accused more “unnamed” people, for not supporting Ron Leroux, than anyone has ever “accused” Ron Leroux of being a liar.

    This is a very interesting tactic utilized intentionally or otherwise by “AbsentObserver”, since “AbsentObservers” first “blog-comment”. It is also widely utilized by people, etc., who want secrets kept secrets.

    Again, I ask, “WHO HAS ACCUSED RON LEROUX of being a liar? WHO, and what have they said. WHO has stated “they” supported Ron before, but not today…WHO?

    I believe, the only people who ever accused Ron of being a liar were the people i.e. “names” and their “protectors-supporters”, he originally disclosed, years ago.

    I urge “ABSENTOBSERVER” to be direct and open with accusations.

    I believe “AbsentObserver” is very defensive and annoyed that some people have opposing opinions. “AbsentObserver”, like many people at the “Weave Shed” expects or perhaps wishes, ALL people to “follow blindly” without free thought, consideration or opinion ….strange, very strange.

    After “AbsentObservers” opening “blog-comments”; I have tried to offer some information suggesting why some people “change their opinions”. I urge “AbsentObserver” to re-visit those “comments” and read them. However, I must ask, why does “AbsentObserver” persist on accusing some people of not supporting Ron Leroux today;


    a) because you work directly or indirectly for, or are “related” in some manner to, a lawyer/law firm and you are trying to “push” your agenda and discredit dissenting and potentially, believeable voices? or

    b)because you are genuinely “ignorant” and naive about this issue and relating issues and you are simply a “dysfunctional, co-dependent, caretaker”, ready to give up your own “freedoms, rights, etc”, to save “someone” else (google terminology)? or

    c) you are an untreated “victim”? or

    d) you have very significant information that MUST be disclosed and you are afraid about how you will be received/treated by “the system” and “people? or

    e) any combination of the above?

    “AbsentObserver”, I suggest you are not ignorant, naive or a “co-dependent, caretaker”. Your arguments appear to be better articulated than “your” opening, seemingly naive “blog-comments” of “wonder and why”; and, it seems to me, you have an “agenda”.

    In response to “AbsentObserver’s” comment that maybe Ron Leroux’s testimony resulted from possible support from God,…consequently elicits my response, that, “my point is, among other things,..no one really know’s if Ron did have a conversation with God..right? or, if this time is “really” his chance? No one can REALLY know if this is “the time”, for Ron or for anyone? My point is, motivations and influences we “receive” today, combined with our previous knowledge and experiences,…influence our interpretations, feelings, decision making procees and action of today. PEOPLE have “free will” and the “freedom” to decide for themselves. “PEOPLE” change their “opinions” and other, frequently, for whatever reason’s. I do not believe “AbsentObserver” is naive of these facts of life.

    “AbsentObserver” exhibits professional expertise, when extracting and referencing partial testimony in/out of context to support “their” assertion…(interesting) wherein;

    “AbsentObserver” cites Ron’s testimony asserting, he has “always felt alone to face the problem.” My reply to this is, “a person can “feel alone” amongst millions” and does this also mean Ron felt “alone” previous to 2001 or in 1999, in 1994, in 1975, etc. Does Ron need professional help or does he need “support” from people who may be offerring inappropriate support. Very often, well intetioned support, leads to devastating results.
    Who determines what the appropriate support is?

    Surrounding, significantly obvious or self-admitting, “dysfunctional people”,… their testimony, whenever, is not enough for me, this writer, to consider 100% credible…I mean “get real”!!

    I am certain “AbsentObserver” is not naive or ignorant of the aforementioned. In fact, I believe, a thousand people can have a thousand different interpretations of Ron’s testimony, dependent in part, on the reader’s personal, secretive, open, social and professional knowledge, education, experiences, responsibilities profession,….etc.

    I agree with “Absent Observer” on this, “no group is “better” than the other”. HOWEVER, again, “AbsentObserver”, you are the judgmental one here. Who has called Ron Leroux a liar? Who has stated one group is better than the other? Be DIRECT, cite your “sources”….do not make veiled, unsubstantiated accusations, based on deliberate misinterpretations of the facts….like lawyers do in many cases. WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM? Public Opinion forming and agenda???…because, you are not ignorant, naive or a caretaking, co-dependent.

  2. AbsentObserver says:

    Here’s what I believe … and remember … this is my OPINION … just my OPINION.

    There are a lot of things being said at the inquiry and in Cornwall about who did what, who saw what, who knew what, who knew whom … all those years ago.

    I am just trying to muddle through all of this in much the same way others are. When I hear Ron Leroux say at one time he saw a ritual being performed by a group of men, and when I hear so many people take that information at face value and use it to promote the idea of a pedophile ring, and then when I hear Ron say he didn’t see a ritual … it just makes me think. Nothing is easy to believe anymore.

    I’m now just as likely to disbelieve the ritual story as I am to disbelieve Ron when he says he’s now telling the truth.

    What I can say again, and what I will say as long as this goes on, is that there are an awful lot of people hurting in that community and I am beginning to realize the inquiry is not going to heal those wounds. There will be speculation and theories and questions to the end of time. Nobody is ever going to stand up say, “Well, that’s the truth, we all believe it and now we can go home.”

    I wish we could all do that. But it looks as though that will never happen.

    Oh … and in regards to the previous statements made by another blogger. You suggest I’m “accusing unnamed people” of something.

    Prima Facie, you post all of these suggestions about who I might be and what my agenda might be … then you resolve yourself of any responsibility related to how those suggestions might be received by the average person reading your post by saying, “Oh, but I don’t think that’s what you are, AbsentObserver.”

    That’s like me suggesting a person might be a pedophile because they haven’t said they’re NOT a pedophile, but then saying, “Oh … but I don’t think you’re a pedophile.”

    If you don’t believe me to be any of the things you “suggest” … why suggest it in the first place? Because something inside you must believe I’m these things … you’re just hoping I’ll come clean and admit it.

    Sorry to disappoint you, Prima Facie. I am not a lawyer, I do not work for a law firm and I have no direct connection to anyone associated with the inquiry. I am a former resident of Cornwall interested in this issue. End of story.

    I know that might be too simple for you to comprehend. Perhaps you can find some way to misinterpret my comments yet again in an effort to push your own agenda.

  3. prima facie says:

    Thank-you “AbsentObserver” for being direct and for your clarification.

    I entirely agree with you when you write, “..nothing is easy to believe anymore” or when you write, “..a lot of people are hurting..the inquiry is not going to heal those wounds.”  ….I agree, this is what I feel very saddened about. The “reasons” you have come to those beliefs/assertions may be different from the “reasons” I have come to those same beliefs/assertions, but we still share the similar “belifs/assertions”,
    surrounding what, in part, the “Inquiry” may or may not accomplish and “leave” behind when it is over.

    Surrounding my “analyzing” of your intentions. I provided several possibilities, including possible associations with lawyers.

    MY INTENTION was to imply I believe, you are NOT a naive or ignorant co-dependent, caretaker and that for whatever reason’s, about this matter, you appear to be “more” informed and more interested, than most people, because you are willing to “engage”…..such as what you have done on this website with me.

    I apologize if I have caused you any discomfort.

    We agree on some things and disagree on others. Thank-you

  4. Myomy says:

    Perhaps a lot of the tap dancing around support of Ron Leroux originates with people liking the new Ron Leroux better than the old Ron Leroux as he retracts his earlier testimony. Any time someone changes his story it will take a toll on his credibility. I could excuse this if it is a matter of remembering dates long ago. I have trouble remembering dates myself. In the case of Ron Leroux retracting the testimony about seeing ritual abuse is more serious. If I ever saw something like that I think I would remember it! Many people who are not familiar with the underworld of sexual perversion my not believe these stories. This is a reminder that when it comes to depravation it is probably worse than decent people are prepared to accept. This is good in many cases but naivete is not good in an inquiry like this. In the book “Lucifer’s Lodge” Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church ( available on Amazon.com) the author WIlliam H. Kennedy presents credible evidence that these depravities have happened. This truly comes from the pit of hell when a mockery of divine liturgy is added to sexual abuse of children. I believe Ron Leroux’s original testimony on this. Who would ever put this sort of evidence on the record because of something heard from a tailor or some confused communication with a policeman composing an affidavit. This would be comparable to having a story of alien abduction. It is so far out that most people would hesitate to tell it and question the evidence of their own eyes. If he didn’t see it with his own eyes he would not have told this story. Now that Ron has changed his story everyone can believe whatever they want to. If the inquiry finds this new testimony credible so as to see no evil are they any more credible than the new Ron Leroux.

  5. AbsentObserver says:

    I am anxious for the inquiry to resume and for Ron’s testimony to continue. I wonder if having a few weeks off to rest and think will cause Ron to clarify some of the things he said in his first few days on the stand. I recently took a glance at the transcripts from those days, and I don’t envy Sylvia the task of making heads and tails out of all of this. At best, Ron seemed to waffle back and forth on many things, names just being one issue of concern. I will be interested to see if he remains uncertain about things or if he returns with vigour and confidence. Of course, he’s returning at the start of cross examination. For any witness giving testimony in any court, cross examination is rarely easy. Perhaps the fact he’s recanted so many previous statements will make things easier for him. If his testimony so far has helped institutions such as the diocese further their opinion that no pedophile ring existed, they’re not going to rock the boat too much. They want to keep Ron intact, in control and on point. I just hope for his sake he can get through it. I will trust whatever method he chooses to accomplish this. I will not pass judgment on his conduct as I am not standing in his shoes. I just hope he manages to come through.

Leave a Reply